David Penberthy, join the long queue of kneejerk castigation Alex Stewart for his video. Oh that’s right, if an atheist publicly (it’s youtube, you have to actively click ‘play’; don’t watch it if you don’t want to - same goes for Human Centipede) says anything about their world view, they are obnoxious, arrogant, fanatical New Atheist. Why “New”? Are the proper atheists those that stay in the closet? Newsflash: flamboyant atheism has been around for several millennia, it’s not a new phenomenon.
Is Stewart mocking the beliefs of others? Sure, in the same way that satirists mock any belief to hilight silly aspects of those beliefs. Is it taking freedom of speech too far, as it is hurtful to others? I understand that Andrews burning these particular books plays on their symbolism to others; but it was not a pointless act of trying to inflame a group (this would be trolling), he had a point to make. That’s a distinct difference with the Florida pastor who wanted to burn korans just to get back at muslims for, well who knows what grievances he had; that was geared to incite anger.
As PZ Myers points out: “Religious artifacts? These were not the Buddhas of Bamyan — it was a pair of books you can buy cheaply at your local bookstore.” This is the point, they are objects which are easily reproduced, there is nothing special about their creation. The special character is imbued by the owner. Some people think a little cracker is mystical, most people know it’s not. Some people think crop circles are mystical, most people know they aren’t.
Isn’t it funny how those people who proclaim themselves to be spiritual, to be in touch with the intangible and non-physical, are the ones that seem so desperately hooked up about the holiness of physical objects. Burn your own copy of Origin of Species, and we’d all just think you’re wasting your money, because the idea is untouchable. If you truly have solid faith and your god is the biggest silverback of all deities, then these little criticisms should not affect you. Why is it that the more loony the beliefs are, the more aggressive people get when they are attacked (just see how Scientology deals with critics)?
That’s the thing about “freedom of religion”: you can believe what you want, as long as I don’t have to believe it as well. We can even tell each other all about our beliefs; being annoying is not a crime, yet.
If we need to be careful to never knowingly do or say things publicly that could offend the honest beliefs of another group, then we must immediately curtail our teaching of evolution, old earth geology, much of astronomy and physics. We must immediately stop people climbing Uluru and pissing on it (actually, that’s not a bad thing), as well as hand back most aboriginal artifacts and relics to their communities. We must not criticise shariah law. We must hide our sexuality. We must stop eating any animal products. We must stop laughing at Trekkies.
There are, however, things people shout from the rooftops, which are much more destructive to society: Anti-vaxination, Global Warming Denialism, Creationism, etc. It’s apparently acceptable to be as anti-science as possible, to insult the very foundations of our standard of living (indeed these people are dragged out by the media as a ‘balanced viewpoint’) yet if we criticise irrational beliefs that are maintained due to tradition or comfort, then we are obnoxious.
I understand that for many people religion is comforting: someone always cares about them, loved ones aren’t gone after they die, there’s an automatic purpose in life, etc. I accept that some people require these certainties to make it through life, but they are nonetheless a cop out from maturing and figuring it out yourself.
To paraphrase Matin Luther King: “First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the religious and non-religious moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the freethinker's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the fundamentalist, but the moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom or the best method to demand freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and appropriateness; who constantly advises the freethinker or rebel to wait for a “more convenient season” or find a "kinder" way to behave. Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.” (hat tip to Aquaria)
We live in a society that thrives because of the scientific method, and no matter what the mealy mouthed ‘moderates’ tell you, this is incompatible with most of what makes up a religion: faith and belief in the supernatural.
